Criminal Records Bureau

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan Ryan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Criminal Records Bureau has today published its five-year strategy and business plan for 2006–07. Copies of the document will be placed in the Library of the House.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Today I have deposited copies of The Freedom of Information Act 2000: First annual report on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in central government—2005 in the Libraries of both Houses.
	This is the annual report analysing the performance of central government in the first full year of freedom of information.

Higher Education: Applications Process

Lord Adonis: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning and Further and Higher Education (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am delighted to announce today the response to the Department for Education and Skills's consultation on improving the higher education applications process. This response is issued on behalf of myself and my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	The consultation exercise that has led to today's publication was undertaken following a recommendation in the 2004 report from the Admissions to Higher Education Review Group. That group, chaired by Professor Steven Schwartz (former vice-chancellor of Brunel University), considered the principles that should underpin a fair and transparent admissions process and made a number of recommendations to the sector and to government. One recommendation to government was to:
	"Set up a high-level implementation group as soon as possible to achieve PQA".
	Charles Clarke, former Secretary of State for Education, in a Statement to this House on 14 September 2004, accepted that recommendation and put in place the structures to fulfil it.
	For the past 18 months, the Department for Education and Skills has been consulting key stakeholders in the education sector on how this could be achieved. A public consultation was launched on 9 September 2005 that included a number of proposals for reform to the current application system and offered for consideration two models of post-qualification application (PQA).
	Having analysed and considered the response to that consultation, we are pleased to recommend a number of reforms which will make the system fairer for students and more efficient for higher education institutions. Responses identified strong support in principle for a move towards a system of PQA but also many practical obstacles to implementing such a system.
	We believe that the reforms we recommend for 2008–09 will realise some of the key benefits of PQA and lay firm foundations for further steps in that direction. Crucially, the proposed new system for 2008–09 will offer those students who achieve higher grades than required by their first firm conditional offer the chance to seek an alternative place that best matches their aspirations and circumstances. We want to build on the step-change that these early reforms represent and, in light of experience of them, commit to working for the introduction of PQA from 2012. We have recommended a further review in 2010–11 to facilitate that objective.
	In summary, the reforms would:
	provide more and better information on which HEIs can base their admissions decisions;
	involve students submitting, and HEIs considering, fewer initial applications, thereby reducing administrative burdens;
	ensure applications are considered on the basis of a gathered field, creating a more equal chance for all students and reducing the temptation for them to place early, ill researched applications;
	give students better feedback on their applications, allowing them to make better informed decisions about their HE options;
	give those who have failed to gain an offer with their initial applications better opportunities to continue applying in search of a place;
	result in fewer students needing to enter clearing; and
	offer those students who achieve higher grades than required by their first firm conditional offer the chance to seek an alternative place that best matches their aspirations and circumstances.
	We have recommended the establishment of a delivery partnership, involving representatives from higher and further education, schools and other interested stakeholders, to introduce these recommendations for the 2008–09 academic year. The delivery partnership will also be tasked with assessing the impact of those changes after they have had time to bed down and to review again a move towards a full PQA system.

Ports: Policy Review

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce today, in conjunction with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, and with Andrew Davies AM, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Enterprise, Innovation and Networks, the launch of a review of ports policy covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ports policy in Scotland is being progressed separately by the Scottish Executive through its national transport strategy and subordinate freight strategy).
	We undertook, in The Future of Transport White Paper, to,
	"review our policy framework to keep track of wider changes affecting ports and to ensure we continue to have the right basis for their sustainable development" (paragraph 7.28).
	That is the intention of this review. We publish today a discussion document, Ports Policy—Your Views Invited, aimed at stimulating wide debate during a consultation period spanning the coming three months.
	The review covers a broad range of policy issues. Based on new forecasts of demand for port facilities, which the department's consultants, MDS Transmodal, are publishing alongside the discussion document, our discussion document starts from the broad principles which we see as informing government involvement in the seaports sector following this review.
	It includes coverage of the national, regional and local policy dimensions; expected capacity requirements; inland and coastal connections by road, rail and water; safety, security and environmental issues; competition at national and international level; governance and accountability; how the country's smaller ports can make the most of their opportunities; and whether there is scope for improving ports planning procedures.
	The House is aware that our original intention had been to await decisions on the three proposed major container terminals at Felixstowe South, Bathside Bay and London Gateway. The first two have been approved, but the London Gateway decision is taking longer than originally expected to determine. We do not want to delay the review: our view is that we need to press on with addressing important questions affecting ports policy for the longer term.
	We shall, in close liaison with our partners in government, carefully consider all responses to the discussion document. The aim is then to develop a policy statement in the first half of 2007.
	Alongside the discussion document, the department is also publishing the conclusions of the municipal ports review, Opportunities for Ports in Local Authority Ownership. This has been developed in close liaison with DCLG, the British Ports Association and the municipal ports themselves. I am grateful for their contributions. The review highlights opportunities for real improvements in ports' management and performance, and I look forward to its recommendations being taken forward. Copies of all documents will be placed in the Library, and can be found on the department's website (www.dft.gov.uk).

Treasury Counsel

Lord Goldsmith: Treasury counsel is appointed by the Attorney-General. In the light of the increase in the complexity of cases prosecuted by Treasury counsel and the need to ensure that appointments are open and fair, I commissioned a review of the current Treasury counsel arrangements. The review team—comprising Dru Sharpling, the chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, London; Mohammed Aziz, commissioner at the Commission for Racial Equality; Philip Oliver, a non-executive director of the Crown Prosecution Service; and Richard Ferguson QC—has delivered a report to me that includes 23 recommendations, which I have accepted.
	In the course of its work, the review team consulted widely, including members of the judiciary, Treasury counsel, the chairman of the Bar Council, and the Crown Prosecution Service and other barristers. Additionally, the CPS conducted, on behalf of the review team, an independent consultation exercise from an equalities perspective. I am placing a copy of the review team's report in the Library of the House.
	The recommendations should ensure that Treasury counsel is appointed in accordance with open and fair competition rules that promote equality and diversity, while maintaining the high standards of service provided by it. Other important recommendations address new ways of monitoring the performance of Treasury counsel, which delivers a valuable service to the public.
	The addendum to the report sets out proposals for the appointment of Treasury counsel outside London and an alternative approach for dealing with serious criminal cases that would not be conducted at the Central Criminal Court.